Minutes of evidence taken before the Departmental Committee on Cinematograph Films (1936)

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 165 14 July, 1936.] Mr. G. R. Hall Caine. [Continued. discretion in that, because obviously these costs, while being based to-day upon to-day's values, might in 10 years or five years' time have changed entirely , and a film which might be a very good film if things got cheaper costing 30s. would fulfil the same purpose as one to-day which we value at £2 a foot. 1806. And it might also be possible later on without unduly straining the resources of British studios to go to a higher cost? — Yes. 1807. There would be two sliding scales? — Yes. 1808. There is the difficulty which Mr. Metcalfe was putting in his minority report of the independent exhibitor? — Yes. 1809. There is the avowed policy of the K.R.S. not to allow independent exhibitors to combine for the purpose of renting films? — Yes, I know. 1810. That is not a point dealt with in your report. Do you think it is a point with which we ought to try and deal? — In what way? 1811. It is not a very easy thing to deal with, but I suppose it would be possible to introduce a clause preventing the K.R.S. from, in effect, obstructing groups of independent producers desiring to combine for renting purposes ? — Yes ; I am not in favour of that K.R.S. policy at all; I never have been. 1812. But do you think we ought to try to do something to alter it? — Yes; I think it does not help the industry. I am not in favour of that at all. 1813. Have you any suggestion to make? — Not at the moment, no. 1814. You agree, I take it, that there will always be a group of smaller British producers making serious films, but doing them cheaply, perhaps taking subjects that are of special value for showing in this country? — Yes, I hope there always will be, and that is what we want to encourage. 1815. But at the same time I take it you would agree that the main progress of British films depends on their commanding a sufficiently wide market to justify expenditure in some way comparable with the expenditure of the big American corporations ? — Yes, undoubtedly. 1816. And that to that extent some linking up with American distribution might help British? — Yes ; I am not opposed to the linking up of British and American interests together as long as the essential quality of British films stands out. 1817. Provided it is an equal partnership, so to speak, and not a tutelage? You envisage the smaller British renter and producer being a permanent feature ? — Yes, and he ought to be encouraged to-day. If it is a recommendation which your Committee are making, I hope you will encourage him, because he is the foundation of the future of the industry. 1818. Do you see a danger, if you have too much protection for him, of a group of mushroom companies springing up which have not got the brains or resources either of intellect or of capital or technically to produce good films, bringing further discredit on the industry by turning out trash? — No; once you get over this quickie thing, which in my opinion has been one of the most serious detriments, then I think a number of companies will come along with genuine people who are genuinely trying to produce films of specialised value. Of course, they usually do what they term films of a specialised character. I think that will be to the good of the industry. In my humble opinion those people will not attempt to compete with concerns like Gaumont-British ; it is impossible for them to do so ; but, on the other hand, they can fulfil a very useful purpose in producing a type of film which perhaps Gaumont-British or British International would never think of doing and which is most necessary. 1819. I agree. I was only wondering whether there is a danger, as has been suggested to us in some evidence, that if their number increases too rapidly you may get a new breed of home-made quickies?— Well, I have not envisaged that danger yet. 37873 1820. (The Hon. Eleanor Plumer): Continuing a point which -Mr. Cameron made about the K.R.S. booking policy, the only suggestion we have had for dealing with that evil is one which might involve, and probably would involve, the legalisation of advance and blind booking. Now you think that a greater evil than the one it is designed to cure? — Well, I am a very great opponent of this advance and blind booking; but, as J said before, 1 realise that it is something which is really within the control of the exhibitor himself; if he does not want to advance or blind-book, he need not do so; there is no compulsion on him to do it ; he can protect himself like every other business man tries to do in this world and usually succeeds in doing. If he were an ordinary normal being, he would say : No, I am not going to book in advance, a year in advance and so on. But unfortunately the cinematograph exhibitor seems to be of a different kind altogether; he is a race of his own ; and apparently he needs some form of legal protection in order to prevent him from doing something which it is obvious to everybody on this Committee should not be done. 1821. In paragraph 17 your Committee recommends the repeal of the Section which lays down that the author of the scenario must be a British subject. There has been a good deal of evidence in support of that suggestion. Do you think it is generally agreed ? — Well, I am in rather a difficult position in the matter, because it was my clause that was brought into the House of Commons in Committee ; I suggested the amendment and the President of the Board of Trade accepted it. The reason why I did it at that time was this, that it was no use having a British film if the scenario was going to be so distorted from British ideas that the whole purpose of producing it was defeated. Ln other words, I can give you an example of a book which is to be turned into a film and handed over to an American scenario .writer, and he will change everything in it ; he will alter the setting and the character; he will keep the same theme but he will alter it so that you would never be able to tell it was a British film at all. The only man who can stop that is the scenario writer, and we thought that if we had a scenario writer with British mentality and British ideas we might hope to get an example of a British film. But there have been obvious difficulties. There are not sufficient British scenario writers and time apparently has not given us very many more. It has had a certain handicapping effect upon certain of the British producers. I think now ,we have reached a moment of time when the danger is not so great as in the early days, and, as I proposed the thing, I am satisfied. 1 sl»l>. You are satisfied now? — Yes. 1823. In spite of the possibility of the whole atmosphere being changed by a foreign scenariowriter ? — Yes. 1824. In paragraph 26 you deal with try-out exhibitions of films before trade shows. Again we have had a good deal of evidence with regard to that, that that might be altered. Do you suggest any limit to the duration or the number of such tryouts? — No, I do not think so. I think this try-out is a trade method, as long as it is not advertised and that sort of thing and as long as it is simply clone for the purpose of getting what you might call a dress rehearsal of the film. 1825. You do net think it necessary io salo-jiard it in any way? — Well, it is exhibited on one occasion and without any advertisement; I do not think that would be abused. I do not see that there is any opportunity of abusing it if it is, as I say, like a dress rehearsal. 1826. At the end of Mr. Metcalfe's report it is suggested that the scope of the Act should be extended by a scheme of compulsory arbitration. Could you tell us what class of dispute he had in mind? — This has been a hobby of .Mr. Metcalfe, for some years, this question of compulsory arbitration. I do not quite know what he had in mind there. I know he has raised it. F 3